SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (9011)6/1/2006 10:27:42 PM
From: ManyMoose  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
I'd like to see an alternative, but I do not want a repeat of the Perot debacle.

I took a test a week or so back that said my principles were heavy on the libertarian side. Yet I don't see anybody out there that I can trust.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (9011)6/6/2006 12:19:53 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Today's special election in California should send a message to out-of-touch Republicans.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Two years ago Francine Busby, a Democrat and school board member in suburban San Diego, ran for Congress and was trounced by Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Today Cunningham is behind bars, and Ms. Busby has a very good shot at winning a special election to serve out the remainder of his term.

Her rise as a candidate this year in a district that in 2004 gave her a mere 36% of the vote and went for George W. Bush by 10 points isn't a fluke. It's a warning of what happens in even "safe" GOP districts when Republicans ignore political corruption and try to turn out the vote by inflaming the party's base with immigration or other hot-button issues. Voters are smarter than politicians like to think, and even conservative districts are capable of electing Democrats to Congress when Republicans forget why they were sent to Washington in the first place: to clean up the place, cut taxes, cut spending and make government more responsive to the people.

Cunningham's fall from power was as shocking as it was rapid. Late last year the eight-term congressman and former Navy fighter pilot admitted to taking bribes from defense contractors. Among other things, he was living on a boat in Washington paid for with payoffs. His district, home to horse farms and conservative voters, was stunned by his blatant abuse of power. But for a brief moment the Republican Party had an opportunity to turn the scandal around and take a stand against corruption when Cunningham admitted his guilt and resigned.

But in the months that followed, Republicans have done little to demonstrate that they understand that corruption is an issue that extends far beyond partisan lines. There was a lot of talk about passing ethics reforms after disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to corruption charges a few months ago. And House Republicans elected Rep. John Boehner as their new majority leader after their old leader, Rep. Tom DeLay, was closely linked to Abramoff. Mr. DeLay is now retiring from Congress. But no substantive legislation or reform of House rules has been enacted, and Republicans have mostly deflected the Abramoff scandal by claiming that the lobbyist's misdeeds involved plenty of Democrats as well.

It's true that the scandal is larger than the GOP. But Republican voter anger isn't limited to lawbreaking, payoffs and outright corruption. It's also about profligate spending and the growing influence of lobbyists. Mr. DeLay didn't become radioactive because he broke the law. Indeed, he likely stayed within the law, even as he steered money to Texas to elect more Republicans and some of his staff members quit to go to work for Abramoff. Mr. DeLay's problem was that he came to power as a reformer and by late last year was pretty comfortable with business as usual inside the Beltway. He didn't catch the shifting political wind against earmarks and other ways members of Congress tap into the federal coffers for their own political gain. He probably sealed his fate when he declared that Republicans had cut all the fat there was to cut from the federal budget--even while Congress was planning a "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.

Republicans are so clueless on the connection of corruption scandals and rampant spending that after Cunningham resigned, the party establishment rallied around former Rep. Brian Bilbray to run for the open seat. In an open April 11 primary, Ms. Busby outpolled Mr. Bilbray, 43.7% to 15.3%, though he led a crowded field of Republicans and thus forced her into today's run-off.

By all accounts Mr. Bilbray is an honest man with a clean political record. But he also retired from Congress in 2001 to become a lobbyist and is just as out of touch as the political elite he wants to rejoin. Instead of basing his campaign on rooting out corruption, he is--bless him--pinning his hopes of winning the race on a promise to get tough on illegal immigration. If he succeeds at changing the subject and firing up Republican voters, he may just squeak out a victory. But the party remains divided, as Mr. Bilbray also must contend in today's primary for the election in November.

Ms. Busby is appealing across party lines to voters fed up with business as usual in Washington and has made cleaning up the "culture of corruption"--as her Democratic colleagues have dubbed it--a centerpiece of her campaign. She is also telling voters that this election is their chance to "send a message." Voters seem to be responding. Going into the weekend, polls showed her tied with Mr. Bilbray and even Republicans declare the race "too close to call."

If Ms. Busby loses, it may be because of a misstep last week. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, a man at a rally told her he'd like to help with the campaign, but "I don't have papers." She responded, "You don't need papers for voting." Later she said she had merely meant to say, "that you do not have to be a registered voter to help the campaign."

The broader issue here is that congressional corruption is rampant and Congress is doing little about it. After the FBI raided Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office last month, Speaker Denny Hastert and other Republicans joined with Democrats in denouncing the raid of the Louisiana Democrat's office, even though the FBI allegedly has a video tape of Mr. Jefferson accepting $100,000 in cash and later found $90,000 of that money in a freezer at his home. It's true that there is a separation-of-powers issue at stake. But constitutional arguments can be abstract and hard for the public to follow. What voters do understand is payoffs with cold hard cash. Do Republicans understand the politics of that?

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

opinionjournal.com



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (9011)12/2/2006 1:27:28 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Difficult times call for less-contentious politics.

Friday, December 1, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

We're going to need grace. We are going to need a great outbreak of grace to navigate the next difficult months.

America is turning against a war it supported, for the essential reason that no one is able to promise a believable path to a successful outcome, and Americans are a practical people. It is not true that Americans are historical romantics. They are patriots who, once committed, commit on all levels, including emotionally. But they don't wake up in the morning looking for new flags to follow over old cliffs. They want to pay the mortgage, protect their children, and try to be better parents in a jittery time. They are not isolationist. They want to help where they can, and feel called to support the poor and the sick wherever they are. They are also, still, American exceptionalists, meaning they believe the creation of America--the long journey across the sea, the genius cluster that invented the republic, the historic codifying of freedom--was providential, and good news not only for us but the world. "And the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

Much has been strained. We were all concussed by 9/11--we reeled--and came down where we came down. For the administration, extreme events prompted radical thinking. American exceptionalism was yesterday. They would be universalists, their operating style at once dreamy and aggressive: All men want the same thing, and we're giving it to them whether they want it or not. Now the dreamers hope to be saved by men--James Baker, Vernon Jordan--they once dismissed as cynics. And the two truest statements on Iraq are, still, Colin Powell's "You break it, you own it" and Pat Buchanan's "A constitution doesn't make a country, a country makes a constitution." Iraq has a constitution but not a country.

When history runs hot, bitterness bubbles. Democrats who should be feeling happy are, from what I've observed in New York and Washington, not. The closest they come to joy is a more energetic smugness. Republicans are fighting among themselves--or, rather, grumbling. They haven't, amazingly, broken out in war, and if they did, no one would be debating if it were a civil war. It would be like Iraq, like a dropped pane of glass that is jagged, shattered, dangerous.

We will need grace to get through this time: through the discussion of the Baker-Hamilton report, through debate on the war, through a harmonious transfer of legislative power in January, through the beginning of the post-Bush era.

People often speak of an absence of civility in Washington, but that's not quite the problem. Faking civility is a primary operating style: "My esteemed colleague."

What is needed is grace--sensitivity, mercy, generosity of spirit, a courtesy so deep it amounts to beauty. We will have to summon it. And the dreadful thing is you can't really fake it.

A very small theory, but my latest, is that many politicians and journalists lack a certain public grace because they spent their formative years in the American institution most likely to encourage base assumptions and coldness toward the foe. Yes, boarding school, and tony private schools in general. The last people with grace in America are poor Christians and religiously educated people of the middle class. The rich gave it up as an affectation long ago. Too bad, since they stayed in power.

The latest example of a lack of grace in Washington is the exchange between Jim Webb and President Bush at a White House Christmas party. Mr. Webb did not want to pose with the president and so didn't join the picture line. Fair enough, everyone feels silly on a picture line. Mr. Bush approached him later and asked after his son, a Marine. Mr. Webb said he'd like his son back from Iraq. Mr. Bush then, according to the Washington Post, said: "That's not what I asked you. How's your son?" Mr. Webb replied that's between him and his son.

For this Mr. Webb has been roundly criticized. And on reading the exchange I thought it had the sound of the rattling little aggressions of our day, but not on Mr. Webb's side. Imagine Lincoln saying, in such circumstances, "That's not what I asked you." Or JFK. Or Gerald Ford!

"That's not what I asked you" is a sentence straight from cable TV, from which many Americans are acquiring an attitude toward public and even private presentation.

Our interviewers and anchors have been taught, or learned, that they must show who's in charge, who's demanding answers, who's uncompromising in his search for truth. But of course they're not in search of truth; they're on a search for dominance.

Interviewers now always, as you have noticed, interrupt the person they're interviewing. Yes, they are trying to show who's in control of this conversation, and yes, they're trying to catch the interviewee off guard in hope of making news. They are attempting to keep trained and practiced politicians from launching unfruitful filibusters and boring everyone.

But interviewers also interrupt their subjects because they don't want the camera on the subject. They want the camera on themselves. They interrupt to keep the camera where it belongs. If they don't, the camera will stay on the interviewee and not the journalist, which will not help the journalist rise. They know their bosses, after all. They do not want the boss to say, "What an enlightening interview, who did it?" They want him to say, "You looked great, you were all over that guy, you grilled him!"

The Dominance of the Face leads to the inevitability of the interruption:

"Why did you vote 'no'?"

"I felt--"

"But why'd you do it?"

"Well, the implications of the question, and the merits of the arguments seemed--"

"That's not what I asked you!"

Because of this style, no one in America has been allowed to finish a sentence in the past 10 years. And it is not confined to cable but has spread to the networks, to government, and is starting to affect regular people, encouraging in them a conversational style that is not friendly or graceful, but depositional.

This has not contributed to the presence of grace in our public life. And too bad, because right now and for the next few months we'll need grace more than ever.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

opinionjournal.com